Comments on: Perception according to Metzingerhttp://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1107
"If you fake the funk, your nose will grow." -- Bootsy CollinsTue, 24 Feb 2015 01:34:17 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: dmfhttp://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1107&cpage=1#comment-67644
Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:56:17 +0000http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1107#comment-67644http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/01/searle-on-panpsychism-not-even-false.html
]]>By: monnoohttp://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1107&cpage=1#comment-67610
Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:03:12 +0000http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1107#comment-67610Largely, I would support Scott’s view, except the focus on Bayesianism (BAY) must be replaced by Self-organizing maps (SOM). For SOM, in contrast to BAY do not presuppose a programmer who establishes a structure before sensing at all. SOM, as an abstract and practical structure, demonstrate how one could think the transition from bodies to minds, without reducing the one to the other, without disrespecting more advanced philosophical thought. (To which Metzinger’s certainly does not belong to)

Regarding Metzinger (and similar stuff), it is indeed very astonishing all the time that such nonsense could be published after Peirce, Wittgenstein and Deleuze (I could include Whitehead too:), if he would have resisted mysticism).
Metinger’s argument is weird at several instances, but it immediately fail entirely with respect to two issues: the everlasting nonsense of “states” in the brain/mind, and the more than primitive image of knowledge that he uses in his argument.

]]>By: Scott Bakkerhttp://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1107&cpage=1#comment-67347
Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:13:38 +0000http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1107#comment-67347It’s always good to see more people reading BNO. It’s flawed in the way only masterpieces can be! But more importantly, it’s over ten years old now, and so dated in numerous ways, especially given the crazy developments of the past few years. You might be interested, Steven, in my latest post on Ray’s reading of Thomas in “The View from Nowhere.” And by coincidence, I’m covering many of these same issues in the critique of Zizek’s reading of BNO I’m working on right now.

I agree that representationalism is probably the biggest problem BNO faces, but it’s gospel in cognitive science for good reasons, not the least of which are the even bigger problems pertaining to the direct realism you seem to be espousing here.

Another thing I would suggest is checking out Andy Clark’s “Whatever Next?” BBS piece on Bayesian predictive coding. By the looks of things, Bayesian models are about to sweep the old paradigms away, and they radically revise the principled distinction between perception and cognition in cognitive science, as well as introduce a new raft of (I think, paralyzing) troubles for the kind of direct realism you’re suggesting. So for instance, the ‘Problem of Illusion’ which so bedevils direct realism accounts becomes, on say Friston’s ‘free energy account,’ an extraordinarily elegant way to explain a number of phenomena, from inattentional blindness to dreaming, that direct realism has great difficulty squaring.